Research Article

Comparison of Tweed Facial Triangle Norms Among Different Ethnic Groups

Hayder Abdalla Hashim
Hamad dental Centre, Qatar
* Corresponding author
Najah AL‑Sayed
Hamad dental Centre, Qatar
Ayah AL-Qaisi
Hamad Dental Centre, Qatar
Feras Abed AL-Jawad
Hamad Dental Center, Qatar
H. Al-Husain
Hamad Dental Center, Qatar
DOI icon 10.24018/ejmed.2020.2.4.348

Read Counter
3814

Downloads
1397

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2020-06-15
Published 2020-07-21

Read counter = 3814 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Aims: The objectives of the present study were to establish Tweed facial triangle norms in Qatari and to compare the result with Tweed norms and previous reported results in different racial groups.

Material and method: The sample consisted of 89 lateral cephalometric radiographic radiographs, 75 patients were females and 14 were males with age range 18 to 25 years old (Mean 20.7. +/-2.3).

Results: The result of the present study showed that the mean values of FMA 33.5 º +/- 6.2 º FMIA 52.8 º +/- 9.5 º angles and IMAP  94.5º +/- 8.8º were significantly higher than Tweed norms. The comparison with Black Brazilian and Bangladeshi indicated extremely statistically significant differences in FMA and IMPA angles whereas in Nepalese, extremely significant difference was observed in FMIA and FMA angles.

Conclusions: Tweed’s Facial Triangle mean values were established for Qatari. However, Tweed facial triangle norms should be used only as a guide and not as an absolute value. Hence, using specific norms for specific race or ethnic group will help in providing more accurate diagnosis and treatment planning.

Keywords: Tweed Facial Triangle norms, Cephalometric analysis, Orthodontics. Lower incisors

References

  1. Downs, W. Variations in Facial Relationship: Their Significance In Treatment and Prognosis1. Angle Orthod. 19(3): 145-55. 1949.
     Google Scholar
  2. Steiner, C. C. Cephalometric for you and me." Am J Orthod. 39(10): 729-55. 1953.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  3. Tweed, C. H. The Frankfort-Mandibular Incisor Angle (FMIA) In Orthodontic Diagnosis, Treatment Planning and Prognosis." Angle Orthod. 24(3): 121-69. 1954.
     Google Scholar
  4. Ricketts, R. M. Cephalometric Analysis and Synthesis." Angle Orthod. 67 (2): 125-38. 1961.
     Google Scholar
  5. Jacobson, A. The Wits appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod. 67(2): 125-38. 1975.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  6. McNamara, J. A., Jr. A method of cephalometric evaluation." Am J Orthod. 86(6): 449-69. 1984.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  7. Chan GK. A cephalometric appraisal of the Chinese (Cantonese). Amer J Orthod 61: 279-85. 1972.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  8. Drummond RA. A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race. Amer J Orthod 54: 670-82. 1968.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  9. Hideki Ioi, Shunsuke Nakata, Akihiko Nakasima, Amy L CountsComparison of cephalometric norms between Japanese and Caucasian adults in antero-posterior and vertical dimension. Eur J Orthod. 29:493-9. 2007.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  10. John Wu, Urban Hägg, Bakr A, Rabie M. Chinese norms of McNamara's cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod;77(1):12-20. 2007.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  11. Emmanuel Olubusayo Ajayi. Cephalometric Norms of Nigerian Children. Am J Orthod Dentofac.Orthop. Nov;128(5):653-6. 2005.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  12. Hamdan A. M. Rock W. P. Cephalometric Norms in an Arabic Population. British Orthodontic Society..Vol 28 No. 297-300. 2001.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  13. Marlon Alvaro Moldez. Koshi Sato Junji Sugawara Hideo Mitani. Linear and Angular Filipino Cephalometric Norms According to Age and Sex. Angle Orthod. 76 (5): 800–05. 2006.
     Google Scholar
  14. Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 32: 175-232. 1946.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  15. Tweed CH. Was the development of the diagnostic facial triangle as an accurate analysis based on fact or fancy? Am J Orthod. 48: 823-40. 1962.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  16. Hasund A, Böe OE. Angle Floating Norms as Guidance for the Position of the Lower Incisors. Angle Orthod. Jul;50(3):165-8. 1980.
     Google Scholar
  17. Mills, J. R. E. Principles and Practice of Orthodontics.Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. 1982.
     Google Scholar
  18. Williams P. Lower Incisor Position in Treatment Planning. Bri J. of Orthod. Volume 13, - Issue 1. 33-41. 1986.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  19. Domenico Ciavarella , Michele Tepedino , Crescenzio Gallo , Graziano Montaruli, Khrystyna Zhurakivska, Ludovica Coppola, Giuseppe Troiano, Claudio Chimenti, Michele Laurenz, Lucio Lo Russo. Post-orthodontic position of lower incisors and gingival recession: A retrospective study. J Clin Exp Dent. 9 (12): e1425-30. 2017.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  20. Bhattarai P. and Shrestha RM. Tweeds analysis of Nepalese people. Nepal Med. Coll. J.13(2): 103-06. 2011.
     Google Scholar
  21. Mayury Kuramae, Maria Beatriz Borges de Araújo Magnan Darcy Flávio Noue,r Gláucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano, Roger Cristiano Inoue. Analysis of Tweed’s Facial Triangle in Black Brazilian youngsters with normal occlusion. Braz J Oral Sci. - Vol. 3 - Number 8. 401-03. 2004.
     Google Scholar
  22. Hasan Md Rizvi, Md Zakir Hossain. Cephalometric Profile of Bangladeshis: Tweed’s Analysis. APOS Trends in Orthodontics, Volume 7 Issue 3. 130-34. 2017.
     Google Scholar
  23. Bangladeshis: Tweed’s Analysis. APOS Trends in Orthodontics, Volume 7 Issue 3. 130-34. 2017.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  24. Insira Sarbeen, Saravana Pandian. Incisor Mandibular Plane Angle (IMPA) in Normo- divergent Individuals. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 9 (10):1621-22. 2016.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar